What's your PET PEEVE regarding super 8?

[Paul Adsett]

Any engineer will agree that the more complex you make a machine, the more there is to go wrong and the more difficult and expensive it is to repair.

Ken, my GS1200's just took a well deserved bow! (Front spool arms flopped over!)

[Brian Harrington]

My pet peeve on super 8 is that the film is not quite wide enough. Kodak should have made the film just a little bit wider, say by about 1,5mm. And the sprocket holes are too small, they should be a little larger, and positioned centrally on the film. That would have resulted in a picture area about 80% the size of 16mm! What an opportunity missed!

Then it wouldn't have been Super 8! It would have been 9.5mm. Oh wait, that already existed!

But yes the sprocket holes are too small, and we've all had projectors that won't run a certain print because of aligment of the holes to the pin on the claw because of it.

Deciding to make Super 8 the same size as the existing 8mm was a bad design, if only for the fact that the they decided to make Dual-8 machines. I know there was a least one machine made that took both 16mm and 8mm, but it was a conversion process like the Eumigs.

It was obviously cost and convenience that Super 8 was 8mm wide -- it was easier to adapt the equipment they already had, which started with 16mm film and was then slit for 8mm. Now they only had to adjust punching the sprocket holes.

So when did they first have cameras that took pre-striped film and recorded onto it while filming? Lipton spends so much time on discussing how to sync sound from a tape onto the film, and people came up with Rube Goldberg-esque ways to do it by connecting 2 Eumigs with belts connected to their inching knobs. Sounds like a lot of jumping through hoops to me. He does talk about the sound cartridge, though, so I'm thoroughly confused. The "double-system" perhaps was so people didn't have to buy a new sound camera.

https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/vbb/f...band-projector

I never knew anyone who took sound home movies, and all the home movies for sale on the bay are 99.99% silent. (Why would you want to buy someone else's home movies? I can't even watch the ones my family took 50 to 70 years ago because they are mostly boring scenery and little shots of family. I pull them out every 20 years expecting something wonderful and they're not.)

The quickest way to get rid of guests overstaying their welcome after dinner back in the 60s and 70s was to say you were going to show them home movies of your last vacation!!!

[Steve Klare]

The big problem that Lenny Lipton and other filmmakers of that era were up against was that so many film stocks (-for example Tri-X and Plus-X) were not available striped and if someone wanted sound with these stocks, second system was the only way to go.

For some reason I can't completely support with facts: 1972/1973 is stuck in my head as the dawn of in-camera Super-8 Sound.

-but don't quote me here! I was 10 at the time and not a reliable witness!

(I did admire film and projectors from afar back then...)

[Brian Harrington]

Thnx -- I did not know that. Sounds like the Super 8 specs were suggestions rather than requirements! I guess that's why they had Single-8, too, which I only knew about since my Eumig had it plastered on the front cover.

Another pet peeve -- fleabay sellers see "Single 8" and "Super 8", but not "Standard 8" on Eumigs and try to sell them as Dual-8s!!!

There's a guy selling a Eumig 800 series right now -- and he says it just needs belts! I wanted to tell him there are no belts! (There ain't no key -- you gotta boomf your way out!)

I only got the book a few weeks ago, and read the projector chapters in full, but skimmed the rest. I just kept thinking why all that had to be done since I have an old Super 8 sound camera.

As much as I know about Super 8 projectors and films, I know next to nothing about the cameras. Once my family got a Super 8 sound projector all we did was watch packaged films. We didn't have a Super 8 camera, but I think only once or twice did my father use the Standard 8mm camera again. Unless it was outside, he used these blinding lights that everyone hated. You can see in our home movies people squinting becuase of the lights! He had a light meter) which I still have, to set the camera properly -- I guess the f -stop. (That is when we aren't seeing boring scenery. Actually, I exaggerated a bit, some of the ones my father took were decent -- what other family members took were not!)

[Brian Harrington]

My pet peeve is the same as yours Paul, but in addition self threading projectors. Any engineer will agree that the more complex you make a machine, the more there is to go wrong and the more difficult and expensive it is to repair.

The KISS principal!

[Steve Lee]

I have often thought it was a shame that no manufacturer ever made a super 8 projector that used a intermittent drive, rather than a claw.
This would have given such a stable image on the screen, as well as being so kind to the film.

Around the back it would have been a maintenance dream, having everything running parallel with each other, in the same vein as the Fuji single 8 cartridge, less is more. Without the need of differentials and worm gears, instead just using one timing belt to drive the entire mech.

I guess there's no point fretting about this now, that ship has long sailed.

[Steve Klare]

My family never had home movies, Dad was a Slide-Guy!

-but I guarantee there are movies of my first day of Elementary School (Trust me: nothing to celebrate!) for years. The thing is they were shot by the lady across the street of her own kids, and I was a supporting cast member at best! Wherever they are now, I have no access.

[Brian Harrington]

My Dad was a slide-guy, too! I've got stacks of plastic cases with those slides. When he was still alive, we tried to run them through his old B&H slide projector, but after a few slides, a plastic piece broke off a slide holder and jammed the machine. It was not a carousel type, but long cases that you slide in.

So then I bought him a slide scanner, but he only scanned a handful. That was a good 10 years or more before he passed away.

I finally threw out that slide projector just recently, since I didn't want the headache of yet another projector to try to fix. I still have the scanner, but it is a big pain to scan them one-by-one. And to figure out the right way to put it in so the image isn't reversed! I did save a handheld viewer with a small screen that runs on batteries, so you just slide it in, press a button for light, and you can have a look.

I was thinking of buying a carousel slide projector, but I don't know enough about them, and where will I put it? I have 10+ film projectors as it is, and my wife is eyeing some to throw away!!! ("Why do you have so many projectors?" "Well, some are for 16mm, some are for Super 8, some are for Standard 8mm, some are Dual-8, some are for sound, some are silent-only to avoid extra wear on the sound ones, plus you need backups for each type in case they break!")

I don't share the same enthusiam for slides and slide projectors as I do with movie projectors and movie film!

[Brian Harrington]

I have often thought it was a shame that no manufacturer ever made a super 8 projector that used a intermittent drive, rather than a claw.
This would have given such a stable image on the screen, as well as being so kind to the film.

Around the back it would have been a maintenance dream, having everything running parallel with each other, in the same vein as the Fuji single 8 cartridge, less is more. Without the need of differentials and worm gears, instead just using one timing belt to drive the entire mech.

I guess there's no point fretting about this now, that ship has long sailed.

Not familiar with that, but I assume it means there is no cam that drives the claw mechanism. So it doesn't move in an arc? It is annoying when a print has the jitters, but stabilizes when you move the frame to either the top or bottom extremes, so it doesn't hit the side of the sprocket holes.

My dream machine would have a feature where you could also adjust the claw side to side while the film was running, instead of just up and down. Also, adjusting the claw penetration on the fly would be great, too, but TBH that's really a set-it-and-forget-it adjustment anyway.

That was probably never thought of since the holes on 16mm and Standard 8mm are much bigger, so when they created Super 8 that didn't really try to improve what they thought was a tried-and-true design. But companies likes Eumig thought coaxial-reels would be an innovative design change!!!

I guess it was like what software engineering is now -- non-technical people giving requirements to technical people, setting an impossible deadline, and telling them in no uncertain terms that it's "my way or the highway!"

Management/Marketing: "Create a co-axial reel design by next Monday or your fired."
Engineer: "It will never work!"
Management/Marketing: "Ever hear of a pink slip?"
Engineer: "See you next Monday to go over our design for a co-axial projector."
Management/Marketing: "And while you're at it, let's remove the feed sprocket to save money."
Engineer: "You're the boss!" (As he thinks to himself, "I think I'll send my resume to Elmo.")

[Paul Adsett]

Well Chips thread has certainly generated a lot of good points. The bottom line seems to be that Super 8mm could have been done a lot better by Kodak. In the sound area an advancement specification of 24 frames, as in the professional cinema, would have made a huge difference by eliminating chatter at the sound head. In camera design, Fuji had the correct engineering design with the single 8 cassette. Why Kodak went coaxial with their film cartridge design is a mystery, but it was certainly a mistake. It would have been so much better if the balance stripe had been as wide as the main stripe, but Kodak had no idea that stereo sound would be used in package movies, and in any case a wider balance stripe would have necessitated a smaller picture area, so they made the right call on that.
After all these decades the question still remains as to whether or not super 8 was really a necessary innovation. People back in the 1950's were perfectly happy with standard 8, and none of the technical advances achieved in super 8, could not have also been attained in standard 8.

[Chip Gelmini]

I have often thought it was a shame that no manufacturer ever made a super 8 projector that used a intermittent drive, rather than a claw.
This would have given such a stable image on the screen, as well as being so kind to the film.

Around the back it would have been a maintenance dream, having everything running parallel with each other, in the same vein as the Fuji single 8 cartridge, less is more. Without the need of differentials and worm gears, instead just using one timing belt to drive the entire mech.

I guess there's no point fretting about this now, that ship has long sailed.

If only the century projector company would've built, super eight machines then we would've had a super manual thread projector with an intermittent movement......

just imagine for a moment, a 35 mm projector concept running super eight magnetic and optical sound with film supply up above picture and sound in the middle and take up reel down below

Who could build such a device? 👹

[Brian Harrington]

Other than the larger image.

I guess my point of view is totally different than the companies that made the projectors back then. They were focused on the amateur film-makers. I was then, and am now, completely focused on showing packaged movies.

The increased image size was a biggie, but as I said I lament that it was also 8mm wide which led to too many shortcuts in designing dual-8 projectors. And although there are/were many dedicated Super 8 projectors, today, in the year 2024, almost all the good dedicated Standard 8mm projectors utilize out-of-production incandescent lamps.

BTW, some sellers have real gall. They try to sell used out-of-production lamps!!! Most only had a life of 15 hours, so if you but them they may last through a 400 foot reel if your lucky!

Converted to halogen is not a panacea, since all the planets need to align. Finding a halogen with the correct volts and wattage is easy, but since they are not designed for specific projectors, or actually vice-versa, even if you manage to fit the halogen in the projector with a lamp holder, you may not be able to place it at the opitumum distance from the gate. I been there, done that.

That hard-luck-Charlie guy sells adapters which are simply easy-to-get halogen lamp holders and sockets epoxied to an old incandescent bulb with the glass removed. I've used the exact halogen lamp he advertised for 120 volt, 250 watts, and installed it myself in the same basic B&H projector he shows pictures of, and the light projected on the screen is dim -- much dimmer than a 100 watt EFP lamp in a projector designed for it. I of course mounted the lamp holder via drilled holes, and re-wired on the back-end, which is the alternate method Charlie sells. All he does extra is supply screws! I've seen his youtube instructions on how to install, and they're the worst instructions I've ever seen. There is even a guy on youtube with better instructions, and he complains how bad the instructions are that Charlie provided, both written and in that video!

[Brian Harrington]

If only the century projector company would've built, super eight machines then we would've had a super manual thread projector with an intermittent movement......

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, every day would be Christmas!
🎄

Who's the blonde in the red bathing suit? A BAYWATCH beauty?

[Chip Gelmini]

2024 Sports Illustrated Weekly desktop calendar

[Brian Harrington]

Va va va voom!